Can Pro-lifers be feminists?

[DevilsAdvocate123]

I am personally pro-choice, but in my 60 years, I have encountered pro-life feminists. Many of which asked that many other feminists try to "revoke their feminist cards", since they are pro-life.

I've asked them if it were sexist to be pro-life, and they explained these points to me:

-They entirely believe in the equality of men and women
-The reasoning behind the pro-life stance has nothing to do with sex
-If men could bear children, their opinion of abortion would be the exact same, as the reasoning behind the pro-life stance has nothing to do with sex
-They want to save babies of all genders, as the reasoning behind the pro-life stance has nothing to do with sex

I'm a fairly reasonable person. I've had discussions with liberals that think socialism is evil, I've had discussions with gays that believe a private business can do business with whomever it chooses, and I've talked with gun rights advocates that staunchly believe in background checks. I like to hear people out. I get things.

In this instance, I believe I understand where the pro-life feminists are coming from when they say they are still feminists.

Should the feminist community embrace these people into the community and work together, or should these people be shunned from the feminist community and not welcome?

If that's the woman's choice then yes, that's her choice. You presume to know what's the right choice for all women everywhere?

Assassinated
yes I know I'm not changing the world be expressing my opinion on an Internet forum, no one is..
My point is someone said
Each to their own, if it's not affecting you, it's their body-
We'll flip it round- who are you to say on an individual level that you disagree with 8 year olds being given hormone blockers- it's not effecting you! Others disagree with you- who are you to oppose their will!?
My point- that just because something doesn't affect you doesn't mean that you shouldn't have an opinion on it. Just because people shout about their rights doesn't mean they aren't doing harm

What a sorry state we would all be in if people screaming about their rights, get their own way. It is impossible to appease everyone's so called rights without causing chaos.
Again I think the ultimate right that is worthy of protecting is the right to life, to do no harm to others... it's the most basic and most important.

A abortion is not doing any harm to others.

Do you believe that a 37 week old unborn baby is another... do you think it alive? Do you concede that aborting it is killing?

To me the pro-abortion stance is to

1. Deny the life of the unborn

Or

1. To accept that of course it is alive, but that your right to kill it is justified by your right to "bodily autonomy"

Yes, I've already said that an unborn embryo/foetus/baby is alive, and I agree that aborting at any stage would kill the embryo/foetus/baby. However, alive /= full human rights. An amoeba is alive, a virus is alive, my liver is alive, my pancreas is alive.

We are no talking about a virus, though are we- human life.
In going with option 1- it is saying that killing another human is justifiable-

If human life is comparable to a virus, an amoebae.. then it is deserving of no absolute rights

Is a 37 week gestation infant an amaboe? A virus?

“I agree but people move the goal posts between bodily autonomy and the "unborn are not really alive", therefore have no rights, argument.”

I don’t think I am moving the goal posts. I think that any rights a foetus might have do not carry as much weight as the rights of the woman incubating it.

So then it is ok to extinguish a persons life if you feel another person is entitled to more rights-
The one here holding the most power perhaps...

It really depends on the sanctity you give to life, how much you think something has a right to life, and - in my opinion - how much of a hypocrite you are.

Humans are animals, so I admit to a certain degree of hypocrisy, in that I give born humans more rights than pigs, cows, sheep, etc. I also don't have any innate feelings about the sanctity of insect life and far prefer any flys, ants, wasps and cockroaches that might be close to me, dead.

So, as you can see the 'sanctity of life' argument doesn't hold much weight with me.

I don't think any of us go out of our way to ensure we preserve all life, at all costs. It's only humans we extend this to.

So, for me, I'm happy to draw the line there, too. A unwanted zygote or embryo doesn't have the same rights as a born human.

I'm quite comfortable with my distinctions - but then again, I also think that people who have a terminal illness and wish to die should absolutely / unquestioningly have that right.

The point is that being alive doesn't mean that an organism is automatically afforded full human rights. You think that an embryo from fertilization onwards has full human rights, in fact more than full human rights, because you think that the embryo/foetus/baby always outweighs the woman. Why do you think that full human rights should be given to embryos from conception?

Well because I believe in the sanctity of human life-
Once you make exceptions to it you can justify killing anyone-
If humans are comparable to a virus- then why can they not be killed, why can't the powerful say who should live or die-
Why can will not kill off the disabled, old people etc....
What makes you entitled to any rights if you believe yourself no more important that a fly?
If someone says it's for the greater good we should kill these people off, why not?

“So then it is ok to extinguish a persons life if you feel another person is entitled to more rights-
The one here holding the most power perhaps...”

OK- maybe it’s time for this discussion to end? Or for me at least to bow out. I have explained that if there is a conflict of rights between a living, autonomous person and a foetus, then the living, autonomous person has to win. I don’t actually like it, but it has, pragmatically to be that way. Otherwise, women will be forced to give birth.

Why do you think a baby at 37 weeks can be aborted but a baby born at 37 week cannot be murdered?

missy You do have bodily autonomy to to all sorts of things to yourself that I, personally, would find abhorrent and harmful. Most of the laws around things like surgical intervention are actually there to protect surgeons, if you think about it. It's not illegal to have your dick cut off - I personally think that's terrible, but, given mental competence, that's not my decision to make.

In the case of hormone blockers being given to an 8 year old, we assume that 8 year old isn't competent to make their own decisions. Should they grow up and want to have hormone treatment, again I think that's terrible but it's not my decision to make.

A fetus has no competence. Any 'rights' it has are trumped by the woman who carries it.

You clearly are anti-abortion. That's fine. I'm not actually interested in arguing the toss with you on what are clearly deeply held views.

But you're no feminist if you hold these views - and that is the point of the thread.

A fetus has no competence. Any 'rights' it has are trumped by the woman who carries it.
If you base the value of human life on competence- then you truly could justify killing vulnerable people.

You say who am I to say on those issues- but If people didn't stop other people doing things for the greater good - society would be screwed. Of course people have opinions on things they don't do themselves- it's how we make laws! It's not a case of simple each to their own, that's a recipe for disaster.

You can absolutely be a feminist and hold a pro-life view. Because you realise that the ultimate "right" is the right to be alive - its fundamental to all other rights, including other women's rights

My opinion is that right to life is the ultimate right that is above all others.
Codifying this into law means the women will die along with the fetus in cases of ectopic pregnancy or toxemia. Further it denies the right to self defense as a legal argument, or even accidental death in some cases.
Far as I know there is nowhere that legal exceptions are not made where life is in the balance.
It is hard to answer these questions for ourselves much less for anyone else. Still, talking about us helps think it through.

But we already have abortion and society is not screwed. At least, not by abortion.

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm asking. Why do you consider an embryo from conception to have the "sanctity" of human life, or full human rights in other words?

You've misunderstood my point about being alive /= human rights. I'm not comparing viruses to humans, I'm saying that alive-things are not all given human rights.

Bewilderness-
I agree and I too would draw the line at where there is risk in continuing the pregnancy - because I think right to life also covers the mother who is carrying the baby, and should get priority in this instance.

I get tired of saying this but people seem to have forgotten or perhaps never knew.
Feminism is the political movement for the liberation of women. All women. Even the women who disagree and do not like the principles of Feminism.

Assassinated
human life is should be protected- I absolutely believe this... saying when life begins means me saying some arbitrary start point if I don't count from conception.
Do you think a baby at 37 weeks gestation should have no rights? If not why not? If you think it's wrong, where do you draw the line?

Your right being alive, doesn't give you human rights... but an unborn baby is human and alive- so should have rights